Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

In the west terrorism works trough media exposure. Fighting it in media is good strategy. Violence itself is ridiculously low volume per capita.

If traditional media would step in, it would be major win. Instead of having symbiotic relationship with terrorism, where they hype up the terror, they could stick to reporting the facts and situation and not providing non-stop terror-porn entertainment to audience.

Once people realize that terrorism just one small risk among other must bigger risks (like high rise buildings with flammable material) they stop fearing it and the terrorism stops being effective. It will never completely vanish, but it will not attract radicals as it used to.






>If traditional media would step in, it would be major win. Instead of having symbiotic relationship with terrorism, where they hype up the terror, they could stick to reporting the facts and situation and not providing non-stop terror-porn entertainment to audience.

Once people realize that terrorism just one small risk among other must bigger risks (like high rise buildings with flammable material) they stop fearing it and the terrorism stops being effective. It will never completely vanish, but it will not attract radicals as it used to.

x2. Traditional media outlets are a massive force multiplier for anyone attempting to terrorize through violence. I understand they have an economic interest in hyping up that sort of thing but maximizing the visibility and publicity of a terrorist act is helping them, not hurting them.


I don't agree that traditional media outlets "hype up the terror". If you compare the coverage of, for example, the recent attacks in London and the fire you're referring to, they seemed to get about equal billing.

On the smaller scale, violence will get more prominent coverage, yes. But that's just a reflection of public interest, and how much intent makes a subjective difference. News outlets like the BBC or the Guardian seem to be far away from "terror porn", and in the case of the BBC, it's obviously wrong to suggest they're doing it for money, seeing as they're not financed by ads.


How often do you hear about shootings in South Chicago in world news? 294 people have died there so far this year![1]

Terrorist events should be treated like any other murders and people will very quickly stop caring. They are just hyped up by the media to drive views and the governments love it because it allows them to expand their power.

1. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-chicago-murders


I used to hold this very view but now I don't watch the news. The reason why I don't hold this view is in the very name and nature of the news, it's "new". Everyday commonplace events even horrific ones are not new and therefore are not part of the news. Choose to not watch.

>seemed to get about equal billing.

Catastrophe porn sells in general, fires, plane accidents, natural disasters, etc. don't increase if the reporting increases.

Terrorism works trough media. Terrorism should get less media exposure and. Ongoing video feeds, constant speculation etc. should be treated as enemy propaganda even if it goes trough neutral channel.

If there is ongoing situation, short messages from the authorities are good. Deeper reporting at later time. TV-cameras on the scene and all the graphical drama building is working for the enemy.

> and in the case of the BBC, it's obviously wrong to suggest they're doing it for money, seeing as they're not financed by ads.

BBC and others are doing what others do and doing it for viewers. They honestly think that creating drama is being neutral. It's not.


Yes. This is most obvious when comparing say an "ISIS inspired gun attack that killed 3 people" vs a ransom mass shooting attack where 20 died. The former is way more mediatized reported on, while on the latter it's recommended "not to politicize the event." But for the terror attack every war-nut and surveillance nut come out to call for bigger military budgets and more surveillance.

And across the pond, such news are also used as a proof that immigrants fleeing the Middle East are evil terrorists and will kill us all.

This makes me wonder whether it'd help if media sources would stop posting their names of the terrorists in their articles. Basically, don't profile them. Don't say where they came from or their personal situation. Don't interview their friends or family members.

Just call them 'evil monster' or something similarly vague and hope history forgets their existence. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of criminals and terrorists causing great amounts of suffering to have their names recorded in the history books.


Or terrorists (for whatever definition of terrorist) feel they need to "step up their game". I'm already afraid for whatever gruesome thing ISIS is going to think up of next now that carving off someone's head is not considered gruesome enough for immediate media coverage anymore...



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: